31
Chit-Chat / Re: Would it be cool for a Stencyl weekly newsletter?
« on: November 07, 2014, 06:07:42 pm »
Yes 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
32
Windows / Mac / Flash / HTML5 / Re: 28 Minute Jam 1
« on: September 18, 2014, 03:37:17 am »
I'm honored I was able to compete in the very first 28 Minute Jam. Congrats to all the participants, you're all winners!
Hopefully now I'm more prepared than ever to make games.
Hopefully now I'm more prepared than ever to make games.
33
Ludum Dare 30 / Re: Ludum Dare Theme is "Connected Worlds"
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:05:39 pm »
dope
34
Ludum Dare 30 / Re: Panel Galaxy
« on: August 25, 2014, 08:07:51 pm »
Credits:
Me
Irock (helped name it)
Justin (made some z-index code)
Me
Irock (helped name it)
Justin (made some z-index code)
35
Ludum Dare 30 / Panel Galaxy
« on: August 25, 2014, 08:02:34 pm »Panel Galaxy is an RPG or Strategy game or something. Made for Ludum Dare (Jam).
The game may be difficult and obtuse so here are some tips:
- You start off placing panels. Once you've finished you can move from panel to panel.
- After moving 3 spaces you're back to placing panels. If you walk into a dead end panel it's game over.
- Your goal is to defeat the boss by getting stronger. Certain panels help with this and others hurt.
- Checking panel descriptions before placing them is key.
- You can check your garnered stats and items with the buttons on the top right.
Feedback is appreciated. I'm sure the game is chock full of bugs and balancing issues at the moment, everything kind of fell apart right near the deadline.
36
Ludum Dare 30 / Re: Ludum Dare Theme is "Connected Worlds"
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:20:15 am »
I'm still in this, but if I do finish I'll be submitting for the Jam as this project ended up taking longer than expected. This theme sparked an idea for me which I now see is a bit too ambitious for LD, but that won't stop me from trying to hobble something together.
37
Chit-Chat / Re: Happy Birthday Blob
« on: August 24, 2014, 03:23:59 pm »
Thank you to everyone who responded to this thread!
38
Ludum Dare 30 / Blob's Ludum Dare's Best Stream Ever feat. Blob Come Join In
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:01:32 pm »39
Ludum Dare 30 / Re: Ludum Dare 30 - Are you in?
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:10:25 pm »
I might enter.
40
iPhone / iPad / Android / Re: Lava Bird for iOS (Soft Launch!)
« on: July 15, 2014, 11:57:45 am »
"How is slavery bad when 99% of nations use it. to each their own i guess haha "
- Ἀριστοτέλης, 332 BCE
I mean Lava Bird looks really cool.
"- Ἀριστοτέλης, 332 BCE
Quote from: henson802
How is an ad in a free game 'annoying
Quote from: henson802
...will even display those full screen ads every few rounds to really annoy you
Quote from: henson802
How is an ad... 'annoying
Quote from: henson802
...to really annoy you
I mean Lava Bird looks really cool.
41
iPhone / iPad / Android / Re: Lava Bird for iOS (Soft Launch!)
« on: July 14, 2014, 01:03:40 pm »Some people will even display those full screen ads every few rounds to really annoy you, then give you a choice for $0.99 to disable them. That's a pretty good system imoDemanding payment to stop annoying and manipulating someone is a disgusting system.
42
iPhone / iPad / Android / Re: Lava Bird for iOS (Soft Launch!)
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:02:14 pm »
"Please don't hate on the ads, without them i can't afford developing games for your entertainment."
What a genuine scumbag.
What a genuine scumbag.
43
Chit-Chat / Re: Ethics in gamemaking
« on: June 24, 2014, 01:08:54 am »
Thanks for the kind words. I'd say a post like yours is even more rare.
44
Chit-Chat / Re: Ethics in gamemaking
« on: June 23, 2014, 11:12:22 pm »If you don't want these types of games made illegal, then what do you expect or want for them seeing as you don't think they should be made the way they are? You do know making people feel really uncomfortable/bad for making games like this, and doing so until they pretty much stop making them, is almost like prohibition, yes? Only instead of the government doing it, now it's peer pressure. "Good game designers don't put in IAPs of that kind. *tsk-tsk-tsk* *look of disapproval*"What a silly question, as if the only way change happens in the world is through political mandates. Public perception can change in all sorts of ways, and when they do the market/other people follow suit. For instance, there's a growing awareness of problems in games like DRM that aptly disincentivizes companies from using it. If DRM ever dies out we won't be thanking a law for that, we'll be thanking a growing awareness in the public. My goal isn't to shame people out of doing anything, my goal is for people to understand why something might not be the best idea. If you told someone smoking is bad because it increases cancer risks you wouldn't be peer-pressuring them out of smoking, you'd be informing them and giving them reason not to. The case for IAPs being bad is less direct than smoking being bad is, but the point stands.
I'm also not going to *tsk-tsk* people or use the No-True-Scotsman fallacy to stop people from doing something, I'm going to elaborate on my feelings.
You say, "Saying that people have a right to choose therefore you're justified in giving people any choices they want is wholly a fallacy." As long as the choices I offer are completely legal for the area I live in and am offering my product in, how is it a fallacy that people should expect to be able to have any of the choices I might offer? And if we're not heading towards a nanny-state-of-mind in gaming, then how is it you want to peer pressure people into not offering gaming options you personally disagree with?I didn't say it's a fallacy that people can expect those choices, I said it was a fallacy to think you're justified in offering something to someone just because they legally can make that choice. It used to be legal to sell kids cigarettes and let them work in extremely dangerous working facilities, that doesn't mean you don't need to think about the moral implications of giving people that choice. This is an extreme example when compared to Free to Play games, but again, the point still applies.
You keep using this word peer-pressure, and if you really want to you can frame anyone stating their contrary beliefs to someone else as peer-pressure for dramatic effect, but it's an entirely normal, acceptable, and human thing to simply think differently than someone else.
I'm going to do that evil boiling-down thing, but let's boil it down. Either you want people to have the complete and utter freedom to exercise the rights given to them by the country in which they reside, including having access to games made in a style you personally think is exploitative, or you do not think people can be trusted with such unfettered freedom and we should discourage game makers from giving them said freedoms. If it is some other third, fourth, or even more options, please correct me by saying them. This is merely what I'm reading from you. What I hear is, "People are too gullible or lazy and it's too easy to trick them into spending money they shouldn't so we should seriously discourage people from making games that include money-spending as ways to enhance the gaming experience so players don't fall into those traps." You may certainly hold such an opinion, assuming you do, so long as you don't use that opinion to stop me or others from doing exactly what we please within the confines of the law and the abilities of ourselves and/or our game design software.Neither of your two scenarios apply. You simply don't need to think that something is good in order to think it should be legal, nor do you need to think that things you don't like or agree with should be illegal. Sometimes people say things that I think are bad, that doesn't mean I think people should be censored from saying those things. Hopefully you can agree with that. There should be no question that people can be exploited at their own expense, even with games, and those are instances of wrong-doing. I don't beat up people who disagree with me, I'm not sure why you'd think I'd ever try to force my opinions onto others.
EDIT: Upon rereading the first scenario you mentioned actually does apply.
Definitely correct me where I'm wrong. I want to be wrong here. I don't want to think this is how you feel, that peer pressure and claiming moral high ground should be valid tools in game design evolution.My belief is that people have opinions about how things should and shouldn't work, and if others find those beliefs reasonable they catch on. This is how all of human society has evolved, I'm not sure why it would be any different with games.
EDIT: This post was rushed and I'm not completely satisfied with it. I made some comments which missed intentions.
45
Chit-Chat / Re: Ethics in gamemaking
« on: June 22, 2014, 05:44:34 pm »
Hideto, I wish you wouldn't boil people's perspective on right and wrong in game development down to 'Nanny-state gaming'. Saying that people have a right to choose therefore you're justified in giving people any choices they want is wholly a fallacy. I think people should have the right to take any drug they want, that doesn't mean that I think it's right for them to take heinous drugs and I'm certainly not justified in offering them to people. I entrust people to be able to think however they want and they have the option of being bigots, racists, and sexists, that doesn't mean I think those are okay things to be.
In parallel, people have the right to spend their time and money however they please, that doesn't mean it's morally justified to make products that prey on people's lapses in judgement in order to generate as much time and money from them as possible.
The problem with 'freemium' games is not that they're inherently immoral, but that they're inherently broken. Free to Play games are not self-contained, which means you can't simply focus on making the best game possible, you have to design the game's structure around incentivizing players to spend money, and as a result compensate whatever vision you might have to fit that. While Free to Play games aren't inherently immoral, they are the easiest means to exploit players currently, and as a result they are often used maliciously.
EDIT: Moreover, you're making a strawman that people who don't like IAPs are saying they should be illegal. In reality, nobody who plays or makes games wants them to be regulated by the government, they know the government doesn't know the first thing about games and only bad things would come of it. It's entirely projection on your part when you talk about a world where games are under prohibition, and people are withheld from making decisions.
In parallel, people have the right to spend their time and money however they please, that doesn't mean it's morally justified to make products that prey on people's lapses in judgement in order to generate as much time and money from them as possible.
The problem with 'freemium' games is not that they're inherently immoral, but that they're inherently broken. Free to Play games are not self-contained, which means you can't simply focus on making the best game possible, you have to design the game's structure around incentivizing players to spend money, and as a result compensate whatever vision you might have to fit that. While Free to Play games aren't inherently immoral, they are the easiest means to exploit players currently, and as a result they are often used maliciously.
EDIT: Moreover, you're making a strawman that people who don't like IAPs are saying they should be illegal. In reality, nobody who plays or makes games wants them to be regulated by the government, they know the government doesn't know the first thing about games and only bad things would come of it. It's entirely projection on your part when you talk about a world where games are under prohibition, and people are withheld from making decisions.
